Do programming/computing systems have to be self-referential/meta-circular to scale?
By self-referential I mean a system that can inspect itself. As inspection is an active process, not sure any analogies to static descriptions make sense (a fractal can't introspect itself since it doesn't do anything)
Is C++ self-referential? Does it scale? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I think the answer to most of the questions that match your text is "no". All of your terms, by reasonable/useful definitions, offer enough room for exceptions to any rule like "systems must be support self-reference to scale".
I suppose the referential argument is that scale requires recoverability requires some degree of process management. Somehow we seem to muddle along with pretty course tools.
I suspect that programs that run for a long time and/or use memory resources near the limit of the available need reflection to work reliably. For example, observe its own memory use to use scarce resources efficiently. Or check the status of its own processes to restart after failures.
If "scale" is just a question of running a single process on ever bigger datasets, or different input parameters, then the answer is no. Most HPC software is not reflective.
Sorry I should have defined what I mean by scale (ie not scaling to larger data). It seems like "amount of code/unit of functionality" seems to be quite low relative to the modern capabilities of computers.
My thoughts here are a bit muddled on this, but it seems like the smallest systems (Lisp, Smalltalk) have a model of themselves in themselves
Why don't we "put our code where our mouths are"?
I've used really alpha projects in many areas but I almost never consider using "future of code" projects other than a short evaluation
My main "excuses":
Which are yours?
Second one stinks as a mindset because there's a lot to learn in experimentation with the unfamiliar.
Libraries. I'm sufficiently proficient with popular technologies that it is less work for me to tolerate a less dynamic environment in exchange for access to libraries that do the heavy lifting for me.
Extension languages (closely related to the above). If a scriptable application can already do what I need, it is often easier to script it in whatever crappy extension language it supports than it is to figure out how to do what I need in a general purpose programming environment, no matter how dynamic or flexible it is.
Too busy making future of code projects to use future of code projects 😅 🙃
Most projects here are something to program. I get a list of ingredients that I can put together however I like. Since I already have ways to program I don't feel like I'm in the target audience. Now if they were something I started to use, I'd probably end up programming them over time.
I tend not to worry about this question, because of how I think about this community. It's to bat around raw ideas, prototypes and experiments, but hallway usability studies here are not a replacement for getting out of the building and engaging with your target audience, whoever that is.
(Unless you consider the people here to be your target audience. In which case lack of uptake means some assumption is getting falsified.)
This tweet is a distillation of my position in a long thread that's linked below. It would be nice to hear from some of you in that linked thread, which already features a bunch of FoC-adjacent people.
https://twitter.com/jackrusher/status/1525357409681776640?s=20&t=u0-jN3LMw24VkZJUduvBaQ
🐦 Jack Rusher: Thesis: we have a ready supply of Engelbarts but a complete dearth of Lickliders. https://twitter.com/jackrusher/status/1525166635937570816
🐦 Jack Rusher: @jonathoda @avibryant @dubroy I’ve worked in {university, startups, industrial labs}, each had ups and downs. The main thing missing in the current ecosystem: long time-horizon (5+ years) funding in a non-commercial setting that offers colleagues/mentors and treats working systems as the primary deliverable.
This was super helpful in motivating why funding is an important lens in the idea machines article: 💬 #administrivia@2022-05-12T20:35:49.434Z
[May 12th, 2022 1:35 PM] stevekrouse: Nadia recently published a fantastic new essay on "Idea Machines: a network of operators, thinkers, and funders, centered around an ideology, that’s designed to turn ideas into outcomes." The main example she uses is "effective altruism". She also refers to the "tools for thought" community (which we are related to) as something that could turn into an idea machine.
https://nadia.xyz/idea-machines
I think our community is fairly close to being an "idea machine". We are missing some funders (though we do have some), as well as a shared agenda (though we do have some). I personally intuit that we're just a small amount of branding (I never liked the name "future of coding" all that much, and yes I came up with it) away from the status of the "tools for thought" or even the "effective altruism" communities. I feel like our community needs to be easier to "point to" in the way one can point to EA.
Any suggestions on branding or other structural changes we could do as a community to become more effective?
What helped me see the light in particular was the phrase, "that offers colleagues/mentors".
For a long time now, I've been moonlighting on the stuff that has the most meaning to me. I justified it to myself as "having agency over my coworkers, the people who give me feedback and may collaborate with me." But how's that been going for me? It's been sinking in lately that the answer is: not great. Institutions can provide a benefit I hadn't appreciated until now: funding acts as Schelling Points to help coordinate people. It's a bit analogous to how prices help transmit information in an (idealized) market to help coordinate production.
🤯
That was good to reread. But it doesn't really emphasize funding? When I've read it in the past I tend to think of funding as a smell, like the companies and universities mentioned. Formalizing a scene often kills it.
I'm reminded now of https://benjaminreinhardt.com/parpa
And whoa, Ben does a podcast called.. Idea Machines!
😂
Innovation organizations are divas: They want consistent cash flows for inconsistent results.
Scenius is real, but people need to eat. Plus, in the development of new technologies, they need expensive gear.
😂
Innovation organizations are divas: They want consistent cash flows for inconsistent results.
